Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 249 Neb. 177 - State v. Hansen

State v. Hansen’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
7
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

64 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably State v. Gustafson (1996), Betterman v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2007)

64 state decisions

4501996200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 23 U.S.C. § 408

Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Bell v. Wolfish · Bell v. Burson · United States v. Halper · Austin v. United States

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Because persons who drive while under the influence of alcohol present a hazard to the health and safety of all persons using the highways, a procedure is needed for the swift and certain revocation of the operator’s license of any person who has shown himself or herself to be a health and safety hazard (a) by driving with an excessive concentration of alcohol in his or her body or (b) by driving while under the influence of alcohol.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[w]here a defendant previously has sustained a criminal penalty and the civil penalty sought in the subsequent proceeding bears no rational relation to the goal of compensating the Government for its loss, but rather appears to qualify as "punishment" in the plain meaning of the word, then the defendant is entitled to an accounting of the Government's damages and costs to determine if the penalty sought in fact constitutes a second punishment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “punishment serves the twin aims of retribution and deterrence. . . . Furthermore, “[r]etribution and deterrence are not legitimate nonpunitive governmental objectives.” . . . From these premises, it follows that a civil sanction that cannot fairly be said solely to serve a remedial purpose, but rather can only be explained as also serving either retributive or deterrent purposes, is punishment as we have come to understand the term.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.